Enough is enough!

Readers of a sensitive or liberal disposition should read no further.  This won’t be to your liking.

I have asked before, on these pages, when is enough, enough?  How many Europeans (or Americans for that matter) must die under the knife, bomb or gun of radical Islam before the quiescent politicians decide that they must finally protect the host population – their electorate – and the host culture? 

The following apply particularly to the United Kingdom, the country with which I am most familiar but could equally be adapted and adopted for other Western nations.  The will likely be seen as anti-Muslim and some might call them racist or even Nazi.  Since Islam isn’t a ‘race’ that charge would be grossly inaccurate and calling everyone with whom you disagree, a Nazi shows only a blind ignorance of what Nazism was about.  This piece also cannot be considered as a ‘hate crime’, since all it advocates is that Muslims - refugees and immigrants and indigenous – comply with the same laws that are applied to others.

In the UK, there are said to be around 3,000 individuals that are under terror watch.  That is these individuals have been identified by the security services as being somewhat active and a potential danger to UK society.  It is not clear how many of this 3,000 are returning ‘jihadis’ of which there are estimated to be around 500 in number. 

Let’s say the total number of people that represent a security threat to Britain are around 3,500.  I would propose that internment camps be established, guarded by the military, and these people interred.  The initial term of internment to be between 3-5-10 years depending upon the weight of evidence, however such evidence has been obtained – illegal wiretaps, informers, etc.,   The term to be decided by a panel of judges. 

Yes, that’s right.  Britain should establish and house its very own Guantanamo. 

OK, so those liberals that have read this far are now foaming at the mouth.  However, it is crystal clear that the security services have neither the manpower numbers nor the ethnic mix of manpower to enable them to adequately monitor the threat posed by these potentially dangerous individuals.  We need these people off of our streets.  I accept that some innocents may be swept up as part of this but believe that the greater good is served by taking these people out of circulation.   Yes, in some respects we must suspend some of our cherished civil liberties, for a time, to preserve them.  Those that seek the overthrow of our societies are no civil libertarians!

Allied to the above measure, the families of those individuals would, where possible, be deported to their home countries.  That is, if the spouse was not born in Britain, then they and their children would be sent to their home country.  Those that were born in Britain would be allowed to remain but would be ineligible to receive any state benefits.  Not receive any – so no free housing, no welfare, no child benefit, no working tax credit, no free NHS – nothing.

Talking of state benefits, they should be withdrawn, with no right of appeal, from any family where a child has been found to have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).   Again, in such cases, where one of the parents was non-UK born, then the family to be deported.  No right of appeal.  FGM is a barbaric custom which adds to the subjugation of women and has no place in civilised society (or indeed in any society).  I would go one step further and require that all girls in the UK, under the age of 16, undergo a medical examination, every two years and those who have suffered FGM be thus identified.

I am not a lawyer but to me it seems to be bordering on treason to want to overthrow the legal system of the United Kingdom and replace this with the completely alien, Sharia Law.  Therefore, I believe that the promotion of such a law should, if not already a crime, be made so.  The UK legal system has evolved over more than a thousand years and is widely respected (and often emulated) around the world.  We need to retain this system and importantly under no circumstances allow any kind of parallel system to be present or have any standing in the UK.  Yes, I know that UK law is largely liberal and much of what I am proposing goes against the deeply ingrained traditions but desperate times call for desperate measures.

I don’t know about you but the overly public displays by Muslims of their religion also need to cease.  So, no more blocking of streets while people kneel and pray.  There are more than sufficient numbers of mosques.  So, no more calls to prayer.  The minarets should be silenced.  To me these speak of an arrogant demonstration of a ‘holier than thou’ domination of areas. 

On the subject of overly public displays, I do not find the hijab objectionable but the full burqa and the niqab should be banned as they hide so much that one wouldn’t know if the hidden individual is a woman or a man nor if the person was a wanted individual.

Speaking of mosques, do not allow the building of a single new mosque – not one.  In the West, we have a tolerance towards Islam which is not in any way reciprocated in countries like Saudi Arabia.  There is not one single Christian church in Saudi Arabia, indeed one is not even allowed to bring a bible into the country!

Sticking with Islamic ‘customs’ – just as we cannot allow Sharia Law to be practised in the UK, neither can we allow polygamy.  Our custom in the UK is one marriage and our law is one marriage and that must apply equally, to all.

Going back to benefits - and this to apply to all – any benefits paid to be restricted to four children.

Again, applying to all immigrants and refugees – any conviction for a crime of violence, for rape, for trafficking, for drugs or child sex offences would result in automatic deportation for the perpetrator and his/her immediate family upon completion of prison sentence. 

Staying with immigrants and refugees, any employer that utilises an illegal immigrant or refugee should be fined £100,000 per illegal employee and serve a minimum 6-month prison sentence.

It is important also that the failed policy of ‘multi-culturalism’ be abandoned.  All immigrants and refugees need to learn how to speak, read and write English.  All organisations should cease publishing documents in multiple languages – be it Urdu, Arabic, Polish or Tagalog, we should only be using the English language.

So, overall, the message is that enough is enough.  We in the West can simply no longer be our naturally tolerant selves.  We need to change.  We need to change so as to preserve our culture and society.  If we don’t change, then we will perish and become subject to and dominated by an alien religion and alien ways.  Much of the foregoing is naturally focussed on Islam and its adherents – principally because it is they that, having seen how good life is in the West, then want to change it to reflect what they have left behind. 

Think about that.  They want to come to the West because we have developed societies that are open and successful.  Then, when they get here, they want to change those societies to reflect life and conditions in unsuccessful countries like Pakistan or Syria or Somalia.  If life is so good in those countries, why not stay there?  Ever wonder why the refugees from the Middle East and Africa all flock to Europe?  Surely those from Syria could flee to Saudi Arabia or Qatar or UAE?  Saudi Arabia even  has a tent city with 100,000 air-conditioned tents!  Trouble is though, those countries have taken no refugees, not one!

If we don’t stand-up for our Western societies – which I admit are not heavenly utopias – then they will fall.  If not now, when?  How many must die in Paris Nice, Berlin, Brussels or Westminster before we say enough and start to fight back.  We need to fight back now, using our laws and legal systems and parliamentary majorities.  If we don’t, then the populists, so reviled by the media and, let’s face it, politicians, will start to take the law into their own hands.

Case for Ireland's exit

The country most affected by Brexit, other than the United Kingdom, is likely to be Ireland*.  This is the only nation that shares an actual land border with the UK.  Additionally, the UK is Ireland’s largest export market in the current EU (The exports to Belgium are higher value but most of this is shipped on).

*In truth though, all of the remaining 27 countries will be affected by the UK’s Brexit since Britain is the second largest contributor to the EU budget and either EU spending must be cut or other countries must fill the gap with higher contributions. Or a combination, thereof.  Though how Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy would be persuaded to fund the EU largesse showered on countries like Poland, I cannot contemplate.

The land border between the UK and Ireland lies between Northern Ireland/Ulster and the Republic.  This was, prior to the 1997 Peace Agreement, a much troubled area, IRA terrorists often visiting death and mayhem on people in Ulster and then fleeing across the border to the Republic in the South.  These same terrorists are now part of the devolved government of Northern Ireland!

What happens to that border, post-Brexit? 

What I am about to suggest will upset some right-thinking people and maybe lead them to believe I propose rewarding terrorists but please stay with me.

I propose two connected actions. 

The Republic of Ireland to also exercise its rights under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and leave the EU and the Euro currency, timed to coincide with the final departure date of the UK.

On the date of this departure, the Republic of Ireland to once again become part of the United Kingdom and as a consequence re- join the Commonwealth.  And, as a simultaneous act, Ulster to become part of the devolved government of a united Ireland.  The powers of this united Ireland would be the same as those enjoyed by the devolved government of Scotland – principally responsibility for domestic issues – health, education, social care, policing, etc.  and the ability for limited local tax-raising powers.  Defence and Foreign Affairs as well as overall tax and financial policy to remain with the Westminster parliament.

Okay, so, at first glance this would seem to reward the murderous IRA and give them what they have so long fought for – a united Ireland.  However, this Ireland will be part of the United Kingdom and Ulster’s Protestant majority should be able to take comfort that their traditions will be respected and protected by the government of the United Kingdom.  Perhaps the devolved government can rotate the seat of government between Dublin and Belfast (just like the EU parliament rotates between Brussels and Strasbourg).

For Ireland this would represent an opportunity to protect tariff-free access to a significant export market.  They would also have the opportunity to become a part of the free trade agreement that will be established between the UK (it’s second largest export market) and the USA (Ireland’s largest export market) and the traditional goodwill, extended to the Irish by Americans can only enhance the chances of a good free trade agreement between the UK and USA.

Of course there would be adjustments needed to harmonise social laws and Ireland would need to ditch its policy of neutrality but on the former there is a narrowing gap, anyway.

Ireland is more closely aligned with the Anglo-Saxon approach to market economics than to the European model favoured especially by countries like France.  This would smooth any transition.

In terms of immigration, Ireland wouldn’t seem to be a threat as there has long been unfettered movement of people between the two countries – ever before the European Superstate was even thought of.  

Another thing that occurs to me is that given Ireland has received significant injections of EU provided funds, which have been invested in roads and other infrastructure projects, then this would negate the need for the EU to refund the UK with the surplus contributions it has made, over the years. 

Oh yes, I think, contrary to the fools who think the UK should pay a hefty divorce settlement (£ or €50-60 billion is mentioned), the UK should be compensated, on departure for the assets it has contributed to, which will remain after we leave.  It is ludicrous that when people talk about this ‘divorce’ they talk only of future commitments and turn 27 pairs of blind eyes to all of the assets that were built up, using UK funds, during the ‘marriage’.   

Consider though that this idea isn’t followed. 

There would surely need to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.  You can’t have freedom of movement between the Republic and the rest of the EU and an open border.  Similarly a hard border would be required to ensure that trade is administered in accordance with the eventual trade agreement that is reached between the UK and EU. (Scottish Nationalists – do take note that were you to achieve independence and subsequently membership of the European Union, these requirements would also apply between Scotland and England)

From an Irish perspective, they would be sacrificing sovereignty but gain a long cherished dream of a united Ireland and also access to a strong economy and market.  Some would say that the Irish would be dominated by the English but consider too, that the loss of sovereignty needs to be seen in the light of exactly how much sovereignty the Irish really have in a German-dominated EU. 

Another thing that would need to be considered – and this might help assuage the fears of the constituent parts of the UK – is that a parliament for England’s would need to be established.  Right now the English, rightly, feel hard done by as Scotland’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s parliaments/assemblies receive generous subsidies at the expense of the English taxpayers.  This is something that Scottish Nationalists conveniently ignore but if they do hope to achieve independence and to join the EU (bizarrely then relinquishing their newly won independence) then they will need to bridge a current £15 billion annual deficit which would be even higher when a post-independence Scotland also has to take on a share of the UK’s national debt – rough estimate £8 billion a year cost.

Please give it some thought and let me know what you think.